Hi! On Tue, 2024-11-12 at 11:02:53 +0100, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote: > Quoting Hans (2024-11-12 09:35:08) > > However, maybe a link is alo no more needed, even with a seperated /boot > > partition. > > It's just a symlink. What's the harm?
For me, the default location of the symlinks (which was the initial complaint) pollutes the root directory with files that to me do not belong there. > Having the symlink is very practical for bootloaders that are not grub. > Pointing an extlinux.conf or a boot.scr to /vmlinuz instead of having to infer > the version is nice. While related, I don't think this was the complaint at hand. I've got no systems I personally manage with symlinks on /, but for the systems where those symlinks are present (most of them, one with etckeeper history going back to 2009, when I installed etckeeper there), those get placed under /boot, which gives the advantages you point out. This would be the distinction between: do_symlinks = yes and image_dest = /boot or link_in_boot = yes > The tool debvm-run also relies on that symlink to infer the kernel image > location. > > And so does the tool mmdebstrap-autopkgtest-build-qemu. > > This is why this is a good example of Chesterton's Fence as Geert already > pointed out. Before trying to tear it down, maybe you missed some of its uses. I've had in mind starting this discussion some time ago, when I found again a system with this default (thanks for starting it now!), but postponed it because it would require checking whether there is any current code that might break (although that would seem surprising given the kernel-img.conf options available). I think the first step, before considering a default change would probably be a visit over codesearch.debian.net, and then see what needs fixing or adapting to support both locations, then file some bugs (ideally with patches), and once those are handled then file a bug against whatever generates the default kernel-img.conf, and against what holds the default value to change it? Thanks, Guillem